Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Hearing Underway on Motions to Disqualify D.A. Fani Willis in Trump Case. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired February 15, 2024 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:00]

ASHLEIGH MERCHANT, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR MIKE ROMAN: You were subpoenaed to come and testify in this case?

TERRENCE BRADLEY, NATHAN WADE'S FORMER LAW PARTNER: I was.

MERCHANT: Okay. But you and I have spoken previously about relevant facts surrounding Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis' relationship?

BRADLEY: No, we have not.

MERCHANT: We have not. We've not texted about those facts?

BRADLEY: Through a third party, you were giving some information. You and I shared text. Our texts were more so about my health, more so about if I was okay with what was going on, that I would not be -- whether or not I was going to be subpoenaed or not, and that, emphatically, I would not have been sitting in this position that's being called as a witness. So, that's what my text chain show. So, no.

MERCHANT: That we've never talked about Willis and Wade having a relationship?

BRADLEY: Not directly you and I, no. We talked about my health. We talked about, as I stated before, other things, but not this, no.

MERCHANT: Okay. Did you text me about Wade and Willis taking many trips together?

BRADLEY: I object.

JUDGE SCOTT MCAFEE, FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: (INAUDIBLE), there's been an objection.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, I'm going to object, as it relates to attorney-client privilege. Two, I'm going to object because I haven't seen the text message that she's attempting to impeach (ph) the witness with. And so he's made all of his representations is that he's had zero communication that relates to the issues that Ms. Merchant continues to ask about and that the only information that she has from him is through a third party, which would be hearsay.

MCAFEE: Ms. Merchant? MERCHANT: Judge, it's not hearsay. We've had these conversations. If I need to take the stand, I will. If I need to put my phone into evidence, I will.

MCAFEE: So, the first objection was to privilege on behalf of the state.

MERCHANT: Oh, I'm sorry, I did not respond to that. Thank you, Judge. Privilege is only communications that are made in furtherance of legal advice. There's been no showing that whether or not they took a trip to California or took a trip or that Mr. Bradley and I talked about that, either in person or by text, that that's privilege. That's not -- I'm not asking for any communications that Mr. Wade might have made to Mr. Bradley in furtherance of any legal advice.

MCAFEE: All right, and Mr. Abati (ph), I believe, as the one asserting privilege, it would be your burden to show the necessary foundation there. Is that something you want to water (ph) the witness on or take up here on this specific question?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, no, I'd also object to foundation ground. She has not provided any foundation that he would have any knowledge of what she's requesting, his answer where he had no knowledge. And now she hasn't laid the foundation in order to continue to ask the same question over and over.

MCAFEE: Ms. Merchant?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On behalf of Mr. Bradley, we do object. This falls under the privileges of (INAUDIBLE) 1.6 of the rules. And the attorney-client privilege is not something that Mr. Bradley can waive. Only Mr. Wade can waive it regardless of information or communications being proffered by the client, Mr. Wade would have to waive in order for Mr. Bradley to continue to testify about any of this relationship until it's been established when that privilege should have begun.

MCAFEE: Sure. And, so far, though, I haven't heard anything about a relationship, about an attorney-client relationship, about a privilege ever attaching. And I think that's going to need to be established before we can actually determine the scope of it and whether this falls inside or out of it.

So, I think either Ms. Merchant can take the lead if she wants to, but my understanding was that, generally, he has to fall on the person who's asserting the privilege.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Except for the attorney who is not authorized to violate that privilege or else he has, in fact, violated the bar rules, which we have an opinion regarding for someone in the state bar of Georgia.

MCAFEE: All right.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's why I thought perhaps the sidebar might be important rather than an objective (ph). MCAFEE: So, I see how we can go. So, Ms. Merchant, it sounds like you need to lay a little bit more foundation to see whether this actually is going to fall into privilege or not.

MERCHANT: That's not a problem, Judge. And what I can do, I was just told that Ms. Yeartie in the waiting room, but I can -- if the state wants to read my text, if Mr. Bradley wants to read them to refresh his memory, I have absolutely no problem with that. I have my phone here and they're welcome to do that.

But I'll talk about some other things, and then maybe if they're going to have a lot of objections to privilege and hearsay, what I can do is I can lay a foundation with Mr. Bradley, get him off the stand, put Ms. Yeartie up and then Mr. Wade so we can get to the privilege issues.

[10:05:02]

That might make the most sense. Thank you.

All right, let's talk about something not controversial then. When did you and Mr. Wade first meet?

BRADLEY: Probably 1998.

MERCHANT: Okay. And did you all have a firm, a law firm together?

BRADLEY: We did.

MERCHANT: When did that firm start?

BRADLEY: Probably, I think it was 2010, we started exclusively working together as a firm, operating as a firm.

MERCHANT: Okay. And were you all actually incorporated as a firm?

BRADLEY: Not initially, no. He had -- when I passed the bar and I hung with shingle in the '07, I think he had been practicing a few years prior to that. He had his own firm. We had two separate firms.

MERCHANT: Okay. At some point did you all incorporate though together?

BRADLEY: We did.

MERCHANT: Okay. Do you remember about when that was?

BRADLEY: I do not at this particular moment, ma'am. I'm sorry.

MERCHANT: Okay. Do you remember if it was administratively dissolved?

BRADLEY: I've been made aware that it's been administratively dissolved, yes. I left the firm around two years ago.

MERCHANT: When did you leave with that?

BRADLEY: August of 2022, I think it was.

MERCHANT: August of 2022. Okay.

BRADLEY: The August or September of 2022.

MERCHANT: Okay, August, September, let me make a note.

So, in October 2019, were you all incorporated as a firm?

BRADLEY: I think we were maybe.

MERCHANT: Okay.

BRADLEY: Yes.

MERCHANT: And when Mr. Wade filed for divorce November 1st or 2nd, 2021, were you all incorporated as a firm?

BRADLEY: We should have been. I'm thinking that we were. Yes, ma'am.

MERCHANT: Okay. When did Mr. Wade come to you to file the divorce action in Cobb County?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's privileged information.

MCAFEE: The timing and the beginning of the privilege, I don't believe that is. Overruled.

BRADLEY: So, the timing was around 2018, and it was probably December 2018. I remember it specifically because I was building a house and I noticed that he wasn't wearing his ring. I asked him about it. I had invited him to the house because I was having a -- not a house warming but people over.

He wasn't wearing his ring. I inquired about it. From there, we discussed what would happen and we discussed the divorce and what would happen.

MERCHANT: What would happen with the divorce?

BRADLEY: What would happen over me representing him for the divorce and when he would want to do it, yes.

MERCHANT: When did he retain you?

BRADLEY: Well, my memory will be 2018 when he consulted with me about the divorce and told me what he would like to see done and when he wanted to do it.

MERCHANT: Do you know when Fani Willis and Nathan Wade met?

BRADLEY: Specific dates, no. I know it was sometime at a conference.

MERCHANT: Municipal Court Conference?

BRADLEY: Correct. MERCHANT: Okay. And October 2019, if it's been represented in the state's pleadings before, that that's when they met, does that sound familiar?

BRADLEY: If that's what they're saying, then, absolutely, I know it was at a conference in 2000 -- I mean, it was at a conference. I don't -- if you say it's 2019, I'll take you at your word.

MERCHANT: Okay. So, it was at -- what you're sure of, though, is it was at a Municipal Courts Judges Conference?

BRADLEY: Yes.

MERCHANT: When they were both municipal court judges?

BRADLEY: Yes.

MERCHANT: So, it's fair to say since she became district attorney, she was no longer a municipal court judge, so it had to have been before that?

BRADLEY: That they met?

MERCHANT: Yes.

BRADLEY: Yes.

MERCHANT: And he was teaching a class at that seminar, as far as you know?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to object (INAUDIBLE) at this point.

MERCHANT: Was he teaching a class at this seminar?

BRADLEY: To my knowledge, he was.

MERCHANT: And was Ms. Willis, to your knowledge, attending this seminar?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your Honor, I'm going to object. He has no personal knowledge. He wasn't present at the municipal court training.

MERCHANT: They put it in their pleadings, like we are going to be here all day.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are going to be here all day.

MCAFEE: All right. If you can establish that he would have some personal knowledge, then that's a fair question. So, she just need to preface it with that and that's fine.

MERCHANT: Thank you.

[10:10:00]

Are you aware of when their romantic relationship began? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to object. That relates to privilege. She says that he began representing Mr. Wade in 2018. He met Ms. Willis in 2019. That's clearly within the bounds of attorney-client privilege.

MCAFEE: Understood, Mr. Abati. So, I think, Ms. Merchant, you need to qualify that question.

MERCHANT: Thank you. I'm not asking you to tell me what Nathan Wade told you in furtherance of legal advice, okay? So, I want to be very clear. If he told you something, asking you legal advice, I'm not asking you about that. I'm asking about what you observed, what you saw, and what you knew outside of what he told you when he was specifically seeking legal advice, okay?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is just too far afield. I object again on behalf of Mr. Bradley. He's asserting that there is an attorney-client privilege associated with this case under Rule 1.6. We're getting to draw any inference, making the statements of any other proper information after this relationship began between the attorney and client of December of 2018 to be improper, and he would, in fact, be violating the rules and methods associated with his bar license.

MCAFEE: So, the way the question was phrased was just saying what did he personally observe outside of the relationship, not involving communications. How does that fall within attorney-client privilege?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your Honor, whether we like it or not, when we have a client, there are a number of items associated with that relationship between attorney and client that come within your purview and that leads you to further action, that leads you to further investigation, further questions, develop your strategy.

We can't talk about Mr. Wade on any level. It would be inappropriate. The divorce was filed sometime thereafter. During that entire interlude, any of these issues could, in fact, have on the basis of their relationship to remain privileged.

MCAFEE: Ms. Merchant?

MERCHANT: Judge, his observations are not privileged. That's not what the privilege law says. And I can read you the attorney privilege -- attorney-client privilege attaches where, and this is the law, this is the rule. There's an attorney client relationship. The communications in question relate to the matters on which legal advice was sought. And the communications have been maintained in confidence and there's no exceptions to the privilege.

First, on number two, the second problem, this was not in furtherance of legal advice. That's not in furtherance of legal advice. What he witnesses as a human being is not in furtherance of legal advice, unless, I mean -- and if he witnesses them together, it would get rid of the attorney-client privilege because Ms. Willis is there.

Additionally, though, exceptions, we can go all day about exceptions to this. Fraud to the court, that's an exception. Mr. Wade, we contend, has filed a false affidavit with this court. That is fraud to the court. If this witness has direct knowledge that that is not true, then that's an exception to attorney-client privilege.

MCAFEE: All right. Ms. Merchant, if you could re-ask that question, again, qualifying it as if it's -- I think you qualified it as anything that, outside of anything he learned or was told as a result of his representation, there was just any observations he made, which, in my mind, as you phrased the question, would have included before December 2018, when this first consultation occurred. I think if you can go step by step, we can handle this.

MERCHANT: And, Judge, I would just ask permission. We gave the state notice under 611 that all of these witnesses do not want to be here. They are adverse witnesses.

MCAFEE: I understand.

MERCHANT: Yes. So, I'd like to have leeway to be able to cross. Thank you, Judge.

All right, Mr. Bradley --

BRADLEY: Yes, ma'am?

MERCHANT: -- in -- do you have knowledge that their relationship began in 2019?

BRADLEY: I do not have knowledge, but, again, I have consulted with the bar as late as yesterday at 4:00. I am not here to --

MCAFEE: Your testimony is that you do not have independent knowledge.

BRADLEY: I cannot -- I was advised by the bar that Rule 1.6 of confidentiality applies and that I cannot reveal anything that I saw or learned. And that if the court is asking me to do that, that an immediate certificate of review should be asked.

And so I'm not here to misrepresent to the court or to say anything inappropriate or anything. I am here because I also have a law license, and I'm not trying to lose that.

MCAFEE: And so, Mr. Bradley, can you finish that thought as saw or learned, just period, without qualification whatsoever?

BRADLEY: Judge, I'm going to refer to what I was told by the bar that Rule 1.6, the confidentiality applies and that I would be asking for an immediate review of the Supreme Court.

[10:15:07]

MCAFEE: Sure, but applies to what?

BRADLEY: Any communications is what the person at the bar told us.

MCAFEE: Any communications, like --

BRADLEY: He did he did not qualify --

MCAFEE: And if you talked to Mr. Wade, that's covered?

BRADLEY: Well, Judge, I don't know. He didn't go into those specifics, but this is what was told. I was sitting there with my attorneys, and this was what was told to us, to state that Rule 1.6 applies. And we gave them the scenario, and this is what they told us to do, and this is what I'm doing at this particular point.

MERCHANT: Judge, and we have no knowledge if the bar was aware of the affidavit that Mr. Wade filed, but that significantly changes the privilege. He waived the privilege when he put that in the affidavit, so that's one of the reasons I wanted to call him as a waiver.

He put the relationship in the -- when the relationship started and put the relationship in his affidavit. He put a lot of information in that affidavit that would waive certain amounts of privilege. So, he disclosed this relationship.

So, basically, what we've got is we've got Mr. Wade being able to say what he wants about this relationship, but then we're not allowed to ask questions to qualify that. So, that's not how it works. They either get to admit it or they don't, either privileged or it's not.

MCAFEE: You're just talking about a relationship, though. How does that open the floodgates to anything he's ever told an attorney during representation?

MERCHANT: It doesn't, and I'm not asking him that. I'm asking for his knowledge. They were law partners. And as I go through the questions, I think he has knowledge of things that is not something that Mr. Wade specifically told him.

I also think there's a fraud exception to a lot of this even if there was a privilege, but I don't think there was for most of it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your Honor, but he's already represented that he has no knowledge about this.

MCAFEE: I don't think we've actually gotten anything to that extent yet. I think we're still making our way through it, which is I think he's taking the position that he's not willing to share anything Mr. Wade ever told him, period, which -- that's a broader representation of attorney-client privilege that I've ever heard.

And I think that's what we're trying to parse out is, if the relationship starts, I've never heard anything that said everything before that point as privileged. Do you have something that I should know? Yes, sir?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My apologies, sir.

MCAFEE: That's fine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Before that relationship, these questions weren't being established. It was 2018, December, the last question was directly related to a point in time after that during which the relationship between a client would have been already established.

He has an opinion from the State Board of Georgia that he's going to be required to testify when he -- ordered by the court on any of these issues.

And, Judge, I understand how delicate this is. You can phrase it in 1,000 different ways to try to make him say something, but you can't unring a bell that he puts out into the universe where he has violated that privilege. We're going to get to go back six months from now and say, oh, we shouldn't have said that. It's not acceptable. It violates hundreds of thousands of relationships in this state that we rely on in order for the justice system to function.

This is an attorney-client-privileged issue. We've done all the diligence we can as far as looking up the relevant laws, the relevant information. We do not have a waiver from the client. The client is present.

MCAFEE: There's no question of why we're not barreling ahead is because I recognize the privilege. What we have to determine is actually what that privilege -- the scope of it and when it started, and I don't think we've even gotten close to that yet.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I apologize. I thought December 2018, Mr. Bradley testified directly. But that is when the chair (ph) and the board proceedings were beginning. The issues being brought up by the state have to be potentially if I've been --

MCAFEE: So, we have a starting point, but does that necessarily foreclose anything from that point onward if they started talking about something else entirely?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: post-divorce, of course, Your Honor. But during the pendency, it would absolutely curtail that, especially as it has to do with observations, attendance, it functions together or other realizations that Mr. Bradley came into during the pendency of his representation. And to parse it out, we put Mr. Bradley in an untenable position because his representation means everything.

MCAFEE: Okay. Yes, Sam (ph)?

STEVE SADOW, DONALD TRUMP'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think we're talking about two aspects of arguably the attorney-client privilege. There's the attorney-client privilege, which is controlled by case law and statute, which deals with communications and burdens.

I don't hear that being the objection.

[10:20:01]

Objection is that there are confidential matters under 1.6, which, in some form or fashion, mean that once you start a relationship with attorney-client that everything from that point on is confidential between the two. There's no such case law in Georgia that deals with confidential information at that time. Attorney-client yes, confidential information, no. And I believe what's being argued by counsel for Mr. Bradley is that he has received -- of course, we don't have anything to write it, but he's received some oral advice that, under 1.6, confidential matters cannot be gone into, which is, according to them, everything that occurs between Mr. Bradley and Mr. Wade from 2018 forward, there's no such law that protects such confidences (ph), only communications made in purpose.

And if I'm mistaken, I apologize, but I think what we're being told is I don't have to say anything at all about Mr. Wade once I have an attorney-client relationship with him because it would be deemed confidential. But if it's deemed confidential, I can't talk about it.

And there's no such case law to that effect in Georgia. There is no bar rule to that effect. The only thing the court has to do is say, are we talking about attorney-client privilege or pure confidences, or confidential information.

Once you decide it's confidential information, you ordered Mr. Bradley to testify, and then it's up to his counsel to decide whether he wants to have his client held in attempt after you've ordered him to testify.

MERCHANT: And, Judge --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's an overstatement. We have not said that he can't testify to anything. The specific question on the table is, what observations do you have for Mr. Wade, and this Willis from that point on.

Now, they, the defense and their teams, have made an allegation of some impropriety. That same impropriety could be related to a divorce proceeding on every level. We're not here to say what I'm talking. We're going to say we're not talking about things that came into his knowledge associated with his representation during the divorce. I realize there's an evidentiary --

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: We are listening inside the courtroom in Fulton County. Here is what is going on. It all comes down to attorney-client privilege. The person who is on the witness stand right now is the former law partner of Nathan Wade, who also was his counsel in his divorce proceeding. The attorney who is trying to get Fani Willis disqualified is trying to establish any communications outside of an attorney-client relationship.

Why you're hearing a back and forth right now is all about when it started and whether communications, in general, are going to be covered or they're very limited in scope.

Now, remember, the privilege means for communications that you have in furtherance of legal advice. It's not everything that is covered. If I were to have an observation as an attorney, if I were to say, what color shirt was that person wearing, what are they a fan of in terms of music, because you're the person's attorney does not mean that it's all communication that's now covered. The attorney you're hearing right now is trying to establish that all the conversations that she's asking about are outside of the scope of an attorney-client relationship. There's a lot of pushback, including from the bar, the Bar Association, who often gives advice to attorneys about what they can say and what they cannot.

They're hearing a lot about a thing called Rule 1.6. That's about confidential communications. Bradley is saying that he had advice from the bar that said he is not allowed to give out any information and has a very wide scope he's talking about.

Now, it strains credulity to suggest that everything you have ever said to somebody before and after an attorney-client relationship has been established would be covered. But that's the argument in the court today and the judge is trying to get the parameters in place right now.

Now, remember, this testimony is so crucial. This witness is supposed to be the one to tell you about the existence of a relationship, the beginning of a relationship, when it started and whether the affidavits and filings that were made to the court were truthful or not.

If he is not able to give information in, if that attorney cannot through this witness get it in, let's find another person to get it in or they cannot make their case.

It's a very important moment. We're hearing more right now from the judge.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- testimony is, so to speak, the bridge (ph) that was built to involve my client, Mr. Yeartie, into this matter altogether. Now, it seems as though that is being usurped. And now she is being the, quote/unquote foundation for the defense counsel's presentation this morning.

So, we do object to that judge and would renew our motion to quash the subpoena because this is completely contradictory to what we had via the hearing earlier this week, Your Honor.

[10:25:05]

MERCHANT: Judge, may I --

MCAFEE: It's okay, Ms. Merchant.

Mr. Partridge, as I recall that did not apply to your client as much. The original motion to quash that you filed said she had absolutely no knowledge about anything. What Ms. Merchant proffered and what I didn't hear you saying was not the case is that, at some point, Ms. Yeartie lived in a residence and shared a residence with Ms. Willis and potentially Mr. Wade at some point, so I think she's directly involved in the center of this. I don't think that really means much in the way of foundation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, Judge -- I apologize, Your Honor, to talk over the court. That information, however, Your Honor, it's my understanding, came from Mr. Bradley, and that information was incorrect as I informed the court earlier this week as well. There was never any time that Ms. Yeartie and Ms. Willis lived together.

There was a sublet of a condo that Ms. Willis resided in that had absolutely nothing to do with that of Ms. Yeartie outside of Ms. Yeartie's subletting to Ms. Willis. Ms. Yeartie actually moved into a different residence per our conversation with Ms. Merchant yesterday. That is exactly what it is. There was no overlapping or any time that they stayed together, nor does Ms. Yeartie have any information as it relates to Mr. Wade staying at that condo as well with that of Ms. Willis.

So, again, Judge, I'm renewing --

MCAFEE: No, we don't need to hear it again. Mr. Merchant?

MERCHANT: Luckily, I don't have to tell them everything that I plan on introducing a witness for in response to their motion to quash. She has a lot of personal knowledge. And when we had a motion to quash, I had to get over a good faith basis and I presented that to the court.

I did not spent four hours going through everything that this woman is going to testify here. She has personal knowledge.

MCAFEE: Is she actually here?

MERCHANT: I think she's on Zoom. What I understand, Mr. Partridge --

MCAFEE: Mr. Partridge, is your client with us?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She's on the Zoom platform, Your Honor, since I'm in Richmond County via my conflict, but she is on the Zoom platform at this time, in the waiting room. I believe she may have been admitted. I see a Robin on my screen. I'm assuming that that is my client.

MCAFEE: And, Ms. Merchant, you want to examine her by Zoom?

MERCHANT: That's fine.

MCAFEE: All right.

MERCHANT: And we will waive any Sixth Amendment objections to that. That's fine.

MCAFEE: Sure.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My only objection was the representation at Monday's hearing was the good faith basis was based on what she learned from Terrence Bradley, and we know that is false. It's not true. So, there is no good faith basis and we would renew our objection and to quash this hearing.

MERCHANT: That was not in regards to Ms. Yeartie.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It certainly was. It was at like the 20-minute mark.

MERCHANT: Judge, she has personal knowledge of this relationship.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not what was represented on Monday. The personal knowledge came from Mr. Bradley. She has no good faith basis to explore this fishing expedition as it relates to Ms. Yeartie. This is a blatant (INAUDIBLE) process.

MCAFEE: All right, Mr. Abati.

Ms. Merchant, I do believe that when we went through the motion to quash, there were -- you grouped them into two categories, and each one of them, we said that they were going to be impeached by Mr. Bradley.

MERCHANT: There were. Well, we took Ms. Yeartie outside of Fulton County, Judge. So, we talked about Fulton County differently than Ms. Yeartie. We took Ms. Yeartie out separately. She was different than Fulton County because there wasn't other issues.

And, again, so we're arguing a motion to quash. I responded to their argument on the motion to quash. Did I tell them that she's going to testify, that she's known Ms. Willis for years, and that her middle name is Latrice? No, I didn't tell them everything she's going to testify to. I don't -- like if you wanted me to, I could have. But that has nothing to do -- there is a witness that contradicts what they have said in court. And they're doing everything they can to keep her off the stand and keep the truth away from this court.

They filed a motion to quash. I showed a good faith basis. If my good faith basis is Mr. Bradley or Ms. Yeryy or texts I've seen, it's still a good faith basis. There's no law that says I have to tell them every single good faith basis I have ahead of time. If we did, we would never have trials.

MCAFEE: All right, Ms. Merchant, I appreciate the argument of counsel. I think the standard on a motion to quash and a subpoena is not one where we're required to completely flush out and litigate every reason the witness may be relevant.

And so we'll take these one at a time with Ms. Yeartie. I'll deny the motion to quash. And if your election into proceed in your presentation of the evidence is to call her, then that's what we'll do.

MERCHANT: Thank you, Judge. So, Mr. Bradley, you may be excused for now. Thank you. Put subject to recall. We will call Ms. Yeartie.

[10:30:00]

COATES: What we have just seen now is the former law partner, fraternity brother and counsel for Nathan Wade leave the witness stand. He might come back.